Basic scenario: the Squid Game (Netflix Series 16+, South Korean production) relates the story of heavily indebted individuals with only a bleak, desperate and despicable future who, at the prompting of ‘others’ – but of their own free choice, decide to participate in games with the winner gaining a huge sum of money while losers are ‘eliminated’ by the Organisation (my word).
The ‘eliminated’ is later converted into ‘killing’ by shots fired from muzzle-only-visible guns, by unknown shooters, to the sadistic pleasure and potential gain of the organisers and entourage. Initially with 456 competitors, the main actor wins the prizes with other competitors being killed (by others) in the process.
The letter by Godfrey Baldacchino, professor of sociology, ‘Is Squid Game the game of life?’ (November 3), arrived after a spate of correspondence pleading with and urging parents not to allow their children to see the Squid Game (the plea).
Baldacchino’s article does not comment on the plea; he examines and compares the story in the light of other similar “dark narratives” and from a social moral point of view states that it is when we are out of our “socio-cultural safety cocoon and comfort zone that moral imperative goes awry”, where principally “brute verbal and physical violence take over”.
This is a valid point and it illustrates why it is essential for society to uphold and protect the rule of law and democracy, albeit the removal of the cocoon mentioned by the professor is inapplicable in this story, seeing that the cocoon is not ‘clutched’ away and the scenario takes place in a democratic rule-of-law state. And, fundamentally, hence, that, within the cocoon of a democratic rule-of-law state, the Squid Game cannot occur and cannot, therefore, be termed the ‘game of life’.
My concern with his article (which seems to me an overview of this literary genre and more worthy of a professor of literature) is that nowhere does he condemn the sadistic cold-blooded killing of innocent people.
This ommission is a serious one. His only other comment of a socio-moral nature is that the “good guy” wins “.... without actually directly killing anyone...”
This aspect consoles Baldacchino in that there is “some belief in the innate goodness of people”. I don’t think this is a correct logical conclusion: the “good guy” does not kill, not because of some innate goodness but because he was never in a position to be able to kill. So there is no innate goodness which can be praised.
There is no need, or beneficial gain, for children to be stuffed with negative moral values- Hugh Peralta
Baldacchino totally disregards the greatest part of the picture (the cold-blooded indiscriminate murder of weak, defenceless and vulnerable people) and irrelevantly and factually incorrectly picks on and praises the innate goodness of the winner. Here, the professor mistook the wood for the trees and, moreover, he picked the wrong tree.
As I see it, the moral of this story is that, in the safe cocoon of a democratic orderly society, there are still those who cannot compete in the rat race and on whom sadistically, unscrupulously and commercially motivated human vultures prey, when society should primarily prevent the creation of such dropouts and secondarily assist them to get out of their rut.
In the immorality of the story there is no guilty conscience for killing, for the loss of life, rather, there is promotion of the concept that killing for pleasure or/and gain is permissible.
The viewing of this killing is imbibed by immature children (and sometimes also by adults) who see this movie as an acceptable way of living. Life is cheap. Violence is promoted.
The Squid Game portrays individuals realistically acting in an animal manner under a certain economic social scenario. But there is no need, or beneficial gain, for children to be stuffed with negative moral values.
I fear that it is such evil and sick narratives presented in an alluring challenging manner that influence (and have influenced) most negatively society (including Malta), promoting immoral and valueless acts, whether of a copycat nature or not.
That other stories quoted by Baldacchino – and, in my view, the quotes are not all applicable – deal with the same issue is to me of no consolation: we are simply piling the dirt and rubbish.
The plea stands for protection of our impressionable children from viewing such influential anti-society, anti-human immoral acts. And, from experience, I can say that not all are able to distinguish and sift the good acts from the bad.
It is of worry to me – and, hence, this article - that our Alma Mater’s professor of sociology (repeat sociology) did not back this plea; that his social-moral comment for the whole story was to irrelevantly praise the winner for succeeding without killing, when the killing had been impossible and, therefore, not praiseworthy (said killing mercilessly and widely carried out in the game by others); that principally he did not condemn the Squid Game for its disregard of life and unjustified ruthless killing; and that, finally, from his respected and leading post, he did not say that the Squid Game is educationally, morally and socially improper viewing for children.
Thus, in the light of the obtaining correspondence, I query the point of Baldacchino’s writing.
His article on this socially unhealthy subject fell short of my expectations from our university sociology professor.
I back the plea.